danivon wrote:Which payments are not 'mandatory', then?
Salaries are mandatory.
Not if the workers are laid off.
Contracted benefits are mandatory. Utility bills are mandatory. Maturing Bonds are mandatory.
True, but there are many, many billions that are not.
Basically, all debts are mandatory to pay back if you don't want to default. Once you fail to pay back one creditor, you have defaulted, by definition.
Even so, what evidence is there that Aug. 2 is the magic "default date?" I know there are many "bills" that are not due until Aug. 15th. My point is that the whole "SSI checks may not go out" thing is rubbish.
Doctor Fate wrote:Please, tell me what the $2T in cuts are. You seem to be the only one who knows.
My my source isn't one of the politicians who might have an interest in attacking the opposition...
Guardian 2 days ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... -agreement
Whoo-boy, you've bought it here mate. First, I would note what the President has made public. See, a "leader" is one who announces a plan and then brings the disparate parties together to hammer out a deal. Obama, on the other hand, has negotiated like, in Boehner's word, "Jello."
the guardian wrote:John Boehner, the top Republican in the House of Representatives, told reporters that "the debt limit is [Obama's] problem". At the weekend Boehner jettisoned the search for a big compromise deal, rejecting Obama's proposal for a package that would reduce the federal deficit by $4tn over 10 years. The rejection left the Republican party – the supposed party of small government – in the surreal position of proposing a smaller reduction in the deficit, which they now want to see cut by just $2tn.
At the heart of the Republican resistance is their refusal to contemplate tax increases, even those including removing tax loopholes on oil profits or private jets.
Second, it is the President who has refused any short-term deal.
Third, the loopholes and private jets nonsense would be, total, a miniscule percentage of the problem. Break out a calculator and prove me wrong--in terms of overall deficit.
Fourth, the alleged (yet to be proven) proposals Obama has made are well down the road. In other words, most of them would not take effect until he's out of office--even if reelected. This is "I'll gladly eat a hamburger today and agree to pay for it in 8 years." Additionally, they included the usual "
smoke and mirrors"--cuts in projected spending, which is not actual savings. If he were offering "real cuts," why not take those to the public? All but the fringe right (even past me) would be outraged. The answer is obvious: he's made no such offer.
From Politico:Obama told Cantor that he would either have to agree to tax increases or give up on his demand that the debt hike be matched dollar-to-dollar to the cuts — that is, $2.5 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years in exchange for a $2.5 trillion hike in the debt ceiling.
Fifth, they want smaller cuts because the President took entitlements off the table, after saying he would negotiate them (hence the "Jello" crack).
The main point is the President has run into someone who won't just roll over and play dead. He wants to continue spending like there's no limit. He's broadly hinted that he wants another Stimulus after the budget is resolved.
Please don't forget the US Senate, Democratically controlled, has not passed a budget in over 800 days. The Democrats went on an unbudgeted spending spree and are now asking the Republicans to go along for the ride. So far, they have resisted.
14 Jul 2011, 6:08 am 
